The problems now raised are admittedly incapable of solution a priori, but the difference between the two schools of thinkers is instructive, as bearing upon the extent to which those who belong to one or the other school would incline…

Arthur Cohen has done good service by explaining that Great Britain has practically asserted the right of a State to absolute control of the airspace vertically above its territory.

The war of 1914 has definitely established the employment of aircraft for hostile purposes, and, as evidenced by the reception given by belligerents to neutral protests, the sovereignty of a state over its superincumbent air-spaces.

The first duty of a ship of war which proposes to sink an enemy vessel is admittedly, before so doing, to provide for the safety of all its occupants, which (except in certain rare eventualities) can only be secured by their being taken on…

In ordering the conduct of which we complain, Germany commits an atrocious crime against humanity and public law; but those who, being duly commissioned, carry out her orders, are neither pirates nor murderers.

In any case, it is not for us to rival the barbarism of their Government by allowing them to drown.

But we find also in the Note matters of even more transcendent interest, relating to the hitherto universally accepted doctrines of international law, applicable to the treatment of enemy as well as of neutral vessels.

Nothing could be more satisfactory than the views thus authoritatively put forth, first as to the applicable law, and secondly as to the means by which its prescriptions can be carried out.

Balfour, that the sharp distinction between combatants and non-combatants contemplated by the ordinary laws of war is inapplicable (without the exercise of undue severity) to operations such as those now being carried out in South Africa.

An Englishman's Home was a play accurately representing the accepted practice, shocking as it must be.

It may be hardly necessary to add that nothing in international usage justifies execution of innocent wives and children.

It has long been settled that non-molestation of civilians by an invader is only possible upon the understanding that they abstain from acts of violence against him.

The passages quoted by Sir James from Hague Convention v., and from the Kriegsbrauch, relate entirely to the rights and duties of Governments, and have no bearing upon the tragical abuse of jurisdiction which is occupying the minds of all…

The question of the balance between benefit to be gained and odium to be incurred by insisting upon freedom to carry the goods of belligerents I leave to the politicians.

They may also visit and search on many other grounds, and the question (one of policy) is whether, rather than permit this addition to the list, we choose to take a step which would practically make us belligerent.

In any case, let me express my cordial concurrence with your hope that, when hostilities are over, some really universal and lasting agreement may be arrived at with reference to the matters dealt with, as I venture to think prematurely…

A reform of maritime law to which the United States are not a party is of little worth.

That search for contraband of war can ever be suppressed I do not believe, and fear that it may be many years before divergent national interests can be so far reconciled as to secure an agreement as to the list of contraband articles.

May I add that no serious student of international law is likely either to overrate the authority which it most beneficially exercises, or to conceive of it as an unalterable body of theory.

This was, in my opinion, a mistake, which has been avoided in more recent times, in which the written law of war has been developed with such marvellous rapidity.

In those early attempts at legislation for the conduct of warfare it seems to have been thought sufficient that the conclusions arrived at by authorised delegates should be announced without being embodied in a treaty.

This object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which would uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men or render their death inevitable.

The employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity." (St.

He fears that no more than this can be done unless and until some international convention extends to those who care for wounded animals the same protection for which the Geneva Convention provides in the case of men; and he would suggest…

The progress of civilisation should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war.